If you arrived at this page by using a link or bookmark for anarcha.org, please update to this url and/or inform the referring page host of the update. Thanks!

How to use this site:1. Browse through the alphabetical list of posts2. Use the labels/tags to find pieces on specific topics.3. Use the search feature for specific items of interest.4. Browse through zines, books, and other printable items by using the PDF tag.5. Check out the popular lists to see what others are reading.6. For updates, bookmark this page and return often, follow, subscribe (by email or other- see below), or friend on facebook and/or tumblr.7. Check out the other pages for more links, information, and ways to contribute.8. Comment, and email me your own writings!

Lucia Sanchez Saornil

The Question of Feminism

Lucia Sanchez Saornil (1895–1970) was a Spanish poet, writer and
anarchist feminist. She was active in the CNT but critical of the sexist
attitudes of many male Spanish anarchists. She helped found the
anarchist feminist group, Mujeres Libres, in April 1936, a confederal
organization of Spanish anarchist women that played an important role in
the Spanish Revolution and Civil War (1936–1939). The following
excerpts are taken from her article, “The Woman Question in Our Ranks,”
originally published in the CNT paper, Solidaridad Obrera,
September-October 1935 (reprinted in “Mujeres Libres” España, 1936–1939,
Barcelona: Tusquets, 1976, ed. Mary Nash). The translation is by Paul
Sharkey.

* * *

It is not enough to say: “We must target women with our
propaganda and draw women into our ranks;” we have to take things
further, much further than that. The vast majority of male comrades —
with the exception of a half dozen right-thinking types — have minds
infected by the most typical bourgeois prejudices. Even as they rail
against property, they are rabidly proprietorial. Even as they rant
against slavery, they are the cruellest of “masters.” Even as they vent
their fury on monopoly, they are the most dyed-in-the-wool monopolists.
And all of this derives from the phoniest notion that humanity has ever
managed to devise. The supposed “inferiority of women.” A mistaken
notion that may well have set civilization back by centuries.
The lowliest slave, once he steps across his threshold, becomes
lord and master. His merest whim becomes a binding order for the women
in his household. He who, just ten minutes earlier, had to swallow the
bitter pill of bourgeois humiliation, looms like a tyrant and makes
these unhappy creatures swallow the bitter pill of their supposed
inferiority...
Time and again I have had occasion to engage in conversation with
a male comrade who struck me as rather sensible and I had always heard
him stress the need for a female presence in our movement. One day,
there was a talk being given at the Centre, so I asked him:
“What about your partner. How come she didn’t attend the talk?” His response left me chilled.
“My partner has her hands full looking after me and my children.”
On another occasion, I was in the corridors of the court
building. I was with a male comrade who holds a position of
responsibility. Out of one of the rooms emerged a female lawyer, maybe
the defence counsel for some proletarian. My companion threw her a
sidelong glance and mumbled as a resentful smirk played on his lips:
“I’d send her type packing.”
How much of a sad tale is told by those two, seemingly so banal, episodes?
Above all, they tell us that we have overlooked something of
great significance: that while we were focusing all our energies on
agitational work, we were neglecting the educational side. That our
propaganda designed to recruit women should be directed, not at the
women but at our own male comrades. That we should start by banishing
this notion of superiority from their heads. That when they are told
that all human beings are equal, “human beings” means women as well,
even should they be up to their necks in housework and surrounded by
saucepans and domestic animals. They need to be told that women possess
an intellect like their own and a lively sensitivity and yearning for
improvement; that before putting society to rights, they should be
putting their own households in order; that what they dream of for the
future-equality and justice-they should be practicing right here and now
towards the members of their household; that it is nonsense to ask
woman to understand the problems facing humanity unless she is first
allowed to look inside herself, unless he ensures that the woman with
whom he shares his life is made aware of her individuality, unless, in
short, she is first accorded the status of individual...
There are many male comrades who honestly want to see women do
their bit in the struggle; but this desire is not prompted by any change
in their idea of women; they seek her cooperation as a factor that may
hold out the prospect of victory, as a strategic contribution, so to
speak, without giving a moment’s thought to female autonomy or ceasing
to regard themselves as the centre of the universe...
Etched in my memory is a certain trade union propaganda rally in
which I was a participant. It took place in a small provincial town.
Before the meeting got under way I was accosted by a male comrade, a
member of the most important Local Committee... Through his fiery
enthusiasm about the “sublime calling” of woman there shone, clear and
precise, the blunt argument maintained by Oken — with whom he, no doubt,
was not familiar, but to whom he was connected by the invisible thread
of atavism — “Woman is but the means rather than the end of nature.
Nature has but one end, one object: man.”
...He was complaining about something that was, as far as I could
see, the main grounds for satisfaction: That women had broken with the
tradition that had them as men’s dependents and stepped out into the
labour market in search of economic independence. This pained him and
delighted me because I knew that contact with the street and with social
activity would provide a stimulus that in the end would activate her
consciousness of her individuality.
His complaint had been the universal complaint of a few years
before when women first quit the home for factory or workshop. Could it
be deduced from this that it amounted to damage done to the proletarian
cause? Woman’s absorption into the workforce, coinciding with the
introduction of machinery into industry, merely heightened labour
competition and as a result led to a discernible fall in wages.
Taking the superficial view, we would say that the male workers
were right: but if, ever ready to delve into the truth, we were to
explore the core of the issue we will find that the outcome could have
been so different, had the male workers not let themselves be carried
away by their hostility to women, based on some supposed female
inferiority.
Battle was joined on the basis of this supposed inferiority and
lower pay rates were countenanced and women excluded from the class
organizations on the grounds that social toil was not woman’s calling,
and on this was built an illicit competition between the sexes. The
female machine-minder fitted in well with the simplistic view of the
female mind in those days and so they started to employ women who,
inured down through the ages to the idea that they were inferiors, made
no attempt to set limits to capitalist abuses. Men found themselves
relegated to the rougher tasks and specialized skills.
If, instead of behaving like this, the male workers had offered
women some quarter, awakening in her encouragement and raising her to
their own level, drawing her, right from the outset, into the class
organizations, imposing equal conditions for both sexes upon the bosses,
the upshot would have been markedly different. Momentarily, their
physical superiority would have given them the upper hand in the
selection of their employer, since it would have cost him as much to
employ a strong person as it would a weakling, and, as for woman, her
desire for improvement would have been aroused and, united with the men
in the class organizations, together they could have made great and more
rapid strides along the road to liberation...
At the present time the theory of the intellectual inferiority of
women has been rendered obsolete; a sizable number of women of every
social condition have furnished practical proof of the falsity of that
dogma, we might say, by displaying the excellent calibre of their
talents in every realm of human activity...
But, just when the road ahead seemed clear, a new dogma — this
time with a semblance of scientific foundation — stands in woman’s way
and throws up further ramparts against her progress...
In place of the dogma of intellectual inferiority, we now have
that of sexual differentiation. The moot point now is no longer, as it
was a century ago, whether woman is superior or inferior; the argument
is that she is different. No longer is it a question of a heavier or
lighter brain of greater or lesser volume, but rather of spongy organs
known as secreting glands which stamp a specific character on a child,
determining its sex and thereby its role in society...
As far as the theory of differentiation is concerned, woman is
nothing more than a tyrannical uterus whose dark influences reach even
into the deepest recesses of the brain; woman’s whole psychic life is
obedient to a biological process and that biological process is quite
simply the process of gestation... Science has tinkered with the terms
without tampering with the essence of that axiom: “Birth, gestation and
death.” The whole and all of the womanly prospect.
Plainly an attempt has been made to frame this conclusion in
golden clouds of eulogy. “Woman’s calling is the most cultivated and
sublime that nature has to offer,” we are told; “she is the mother, the
guide, the educator of the humanity of the future.” Meanwhile the talk
is of directing her every move, her entire life, all her education
towards that single goal: the only one consonant with her nature, it
would seem.
So now we have the notions of womanhood and motherhood set
alongside each other again. Because it transpires that the sages have
not discovered any middle ground; down through the ages, the practice
has been a mystical eulogization of motherhood; hitherto, the praises
went to the prolific mother, the mother who gives birth to heroes,
saints, redeemers or tyrants; from now on, the praise will be reserved
for the eugenic mother, the conceiver, the gestator, the immaculate
birth-mother...
I said that we had the notions of womanhood and of motherhood set
beside each other, but I was wrong; we already have something worse:
the notion of motherhood overshadowing that of womanhood, the function
annihilating the individual.
It might be said that down through the ages the male world has
wavered, in its dealings with woman, between the two extreme notions of
whore and mother, from the abject to the sublime without stopping at the
strictly human: woman. Woman as an individual, as a rational,
thoughtful, autonomous individual...
The mother is the product of the male backlash against the whore
that every woman represents to him. It is the deification of the uterus
that hosted him.
But — and let no one be scandalized for we are in the company of
anarchists and our essential commitment is to call things by their
proper name and tear down all wrong-headed notions, no matter how
prestigious these may be — the mother as an asset to society has thus
far merely been the manifestation of an instinct, an instinct all the
sharper because woman’s life has revolved solely around it for years;
but an instinct, for all that, except that in some superior women it has
acquired the status of sentiment.
Woman, on the other hand, is an individual, a thoughtful
creature, a higher entity. By focusing on the mother you seek to banish
woman when you could have woman and mother, because womanhood never
excludes motherhood.
You sneer at woman as a determinative factor in society,
assigning her the status of a passive factor. You sneer at the direct
contribution of an intelligent woman, in favour of her perhaps inept
male offspring. I say again: we must call things by their proper names.
That women are women before all else; only if they are women will you
have the mothers you need.
What I find really shocking is that male comrades who style
themselves anarchists, bedazzled, perhaps, by the scientific principle
upon which the new dogma purports to rest, are capable of upholding it.
At the sight of them, I am assailed by this doubt: if they are
anarchists, they cannot be for real, and if they are for real, they are
no anarchists.
Under the theory of differentiation, the mother is the equivalent
of the worker. To an anarchist, above all else a worker is a man, and
above all else the mother should be a woman. (I am speaking in a generic
sense). Because, for an anarchist, the individual comes first and
foremost...
Regrettable it may be, but the campaigns for greater sexual
freedom have not always been properly understood by our young male
comrades, and in many instances, they have attracted into our ranks a
large number of youths of both sexes who could not care less about the
social question and who are just on the look-out for an opening for
their own amorous adventures. There are some who have construed that
freedom as an invitation to over-indulgence and who look upon every
woman that passes their way as a target for their appetites...
In our centres, rarely frequented by young women, I have noticed
that conversations between the sexes rarely revolve around an issue, let
alone a work-related matter; the moment a youth comes face to face with
someone of the opposite sex, the sexual issue casts its spell and free
love seems to be the sole topic of conversation. And I have seen two
types of female response to this. One, instant surrender to the
suggestion; in which case it is not long before the woman winds up as a
plaything of masculine whims and drifts away completely from any social
conscience. The other is disenchantment: whereby the woman who arrived
with loftier ambitions and aspirations comes away disappointed and ends
up withdrawing from our ranks. Only a few women with strength of
character who have learned to gauge the worth of things for themselves
manage to weather this.
As for the male response, that remains the same as ever, in spite
of his vaunted sexual education and this is plain when, in various
amorous entanglements with the woman he regards as a “female comrade,”
the Don Juan figure turns into an Othello and the woman-if not the pair
of them-is lost to the movement...
It is, ultimately, my considered opinion that resolution of this
problem lies solely in a proper resolution of the economic question. In
revolution. And nowhere else. Anything else would merely be calling the
same old slavery by a new name.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Google Website Translator Gadget

If you would like to view something in English that is in a different language, you might try clicking that different language (or another) and then clicking English (which might be at the top of the list) to translate it to English.

Trigger Warnings

I apologize, but in the course of adding over 600 articles to this site mostly over the course of a few months, I neglected to include trigger warnings and do not see it as something I can go back and correct. Please use the tags in lieu of trigger warnings, as for the most part, articles are labeled for things that could be triggering.

Follow by Email

Subscribe To

anarcha library tumblr

Blog Archive

Facebook Badge

Anarcha: Mother of Gynecology

It was after being part of anarcha.org that I learned of a woman named Anarcha, having nothing to do with anarcha-feminism, but whose story is very relevant. I was reminded of her recently by my friend Will who wants to study midwifery. Anarcha was a slave who was experimented on by a gynecologist numerous times without anesthesia.Anarcha: Mother of GynecologyAnarcha's Story